Calcutta High Court in the Case of Shambhunath Jaiswal Vs. Anjana Jaiswal 1990(3) Cril. 268(Cal.) held that burden of proving quantam of husband income is on the husband and not on wife. In such situation the learned Judge has rightly directed the applicant for producing last three years income tax returns and salary slips.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navneet vs Smt.Priyanka on 17 July, 2015
Order This Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 01/04/2015 passed by IInd Addl. Principle Judge, Family Court Indore in MJC No. 958/2013, whereby allowed the application of non- applicant directed applicant to produce his last 3 years income tax returns and salary slips.
Brief facts of this case are that the applicant got married with the non-applicant on 24/05/2013. After marriage some dispute arose between the husband and wife. Subsequently, non-applicant wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for maintenance and also filed another application for interim maintenance. non-applicant in her application stated that applicant is serving in Wockhardt Research Centre, Chikal, Aurangabad. In reply applicant denied this fact ,then the non applicant has filed an application with this prayer that the applicant be directed to file his income tax returns and salary slips.
After hearing the parties by impugned order learned Judge allowed the application & directed the applicant to produce the copy of last three years income tax returns and original pay slip. Being agrieved with this order the applicant has filed this revision.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant cannot be compell to produce the documents hampering his own defence, the impugned order is against the principle of natural justice and bad in law. Therefore it be set aside otherwise it will caused prejudiced to the applicant.
On the other hand learned counsel for the non- applicant raised a preliminary object that the impugned order is interlocatory order therefore against such order revision is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C are of quasi- civil & quasi-criminal in nature,and the Court has wide power to direct any party to produce the documents which are in his possession and power. Thus, revision is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.
Undisputedly the impugned order is interlocatory order. Therefore , no revision can lie against such order even otherwise also the Court has wide power to direct any party to produce the documents which is in his possession and power, for just decision of the case.
By the impugned order learned Judge has ordered to produce the documents in regard to income of the applicant. Calcutta High Court in the Case of Shambhunath Jaiswal Vs. Anjana Jaiswal 1990(3) Cril. 268(Cal.) held that burden of proving quantam of husband income is on the husband and not on wife. In such situation the learned Judge has rightly directed the applicant for producing last three years income tax returns and salary slips.
Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Therefore the revision is dismissed.
Copy of this order alongwith the trial Courts record be sent immediatelyto the trial Court.
(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge skt